Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-05-08
nltuncons,itutiona,. :.


Is ft Unconstttutionai' ?
Senator Hearst on arecent occasion
as he passed through this city en-
~o,fs to his home from Washington
was interviewed by a HERALD re-
porter, and gave his views on the
Interstate Commerce act. The SEN
ator remarked very truly that he had
always been at heart opposed to the
law, and had said so, but that out OF
Difference to the Will OF his constitu-
ents he had not opposed it so actively
as he should have done had there not
been 80 unanimous an expression in
its favor.
1t is one OF the wonders of the age
that this measure SO long before the
public as it had been should have
met with so general appreciation be-
fore its passage, and have elected
such universal opposition as soon as
il was put into practical operation.
This goes TO show how little legisla-
tors and the people generally under
stand the complicated business OF
railroading in the gigantic manner in
which it is carried on in this country
at the present time. Had not the
power OF suspending the operation OF
the famous fourth clause touching
"long hauls" been fortunately vested
in the Commission the business of
the country would have suffered a
stroke of paralysis from which it
would not have recovered in gener-
alton unless by the repeal of the act.
But suppose the Commission should
see fit not to exercise this prerogative
SO generally and so promptly as they
are doing, what then would be the
result? In view of this problem the
opinion of Mr.. Z. Donan, OF Denver,
touching the unconstitutional nature
OF the law becomes very important.
Mr.. Donan set forth his views in the
New York Herald Immediately upon
the passage OF the famous act. With
out attempting to quote the language
OF the writer rerbdtim, we condense
the main points as follows: The act
is unconstitutional because it at
tempts TO control and regulate the in
fernal commerce of the various
States. The Constitution OF the
United States gives Congress power
to regulate commerce with foreign
nations, that between the several
States and with Indian tribes, but
leaves to each State the right to reg
ulate its own domestic commerce.
The act is also unconstitutional
because it does away with trial by
jury. By the Constitution the de-
fendant in any criminal cause, or in
any civil suit involving sum greater
than twenty dollars, is entitled to a
jury trial. In section eight of the
Interstate Commerce law are emu
merated list of grievances each OF
which may be made a cause OF action
at common law. The act under con-
sideration takes the right Of trial by
jury from the defendants in these
cases and vests judicial power over
such cases in the Commission.
Under the constitution no defend
ant can be compelled to give evil
ience which would tend to criminate
himself. This right the act takes from
those charged with violation OF its
provisions. Vide, sections nine and
twelve OF the act.
The famous section four is uncon-
stitutional because it gives the Com
mission power to dispense with any
and all the requirements OF the act.
In this matter the Commission is
clothed with absolutely unrestricted
powers. This power is by the con-
HtltuLlUn uticghttu w NchbipDD "'i'
no authority can delegate the power
delegated.
The act IS unconstitutional in that
il blends in the Commission legisla-
tive, judicial and executive powers.
At many points the powers conferred
on the Commission trenches on the
rights reserved by the constitution to
the sovereign States OF the Union.
The Federal government has no
common law jurisdiction, criminal or
civil, excepting SO far as such powers
have been granted the general gov
eminent by statutory enactment of
the several states. The laws differ
very widely in the different states in
this respect. But the authority Of
this Commission extends into all
States and Territories, overriding
rouehshod State enactments, and
decisions Of the State courts. Those